peer-reviewed article bioresources · peer-reviewed article bioresources.com ... serial and...
TRANSCRIPT
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Ayyıldız and Ayyıldız (2017). “Kinematic milling,” BioResources 12(4), 9326-9337. 9326
Development of a 3-axis Parallel Kinematic Machine for Milling Wood Material – Part 1: Design
Elmas Aşkar Ayyıldız a and Mustafa Ayyıldız b,*
A 3-axis parallel kinematic machine tool and advanced control system with programming in G-code for the milling of wood material are described in detail. This parallel kinematic machine is based on a 3-PSS (prismatic link, spherical link, and spherical link) parallel mechanism. A programming system and control based on a real-time PC windows platform and Mach3 software system was implemented for this tool. Finally, a model application of a programming system developed for a three-degree-of-freedom linear delta parallel machine was presented, and the workability for milling wood material (medium-density fibreboard) was shown.
Keywords: Parallel kinematic machine; G-code; Milling wood material
Contact information: a: Institute of Science and Technology, Karabük University, Karabük, Turkey;
b: Manufacturing Engineering Department of Technology Faculty, Düzce University, Düzce, Turkey;
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Wood machining is strongly influenced by wood texture. Thus, it is a very
important field of research to achieve optimum wood machining conditions (Aguilera et
al. 2000). Milling is a machining operation regularly used in manufacturing parts of wood.
In previous literature, metal milling has been studied broadly, but medium-density
fibreboard (MDF) milling has not received much attention. Many works (Aguilera et al.
2000; Gordon and Hillery 2003; Lin et al. 2006; Davim et al. 2009; Vančo et al. 2017),
when reporting about the machining of wood material, have shown that the machinability
is dependent upon the cutting tool, the cutting mechanics, and the workpiece material.
Parallel Kinematic Machines (PKMs) are frequently used in many industrial
applications that require high precision demanded by the latest developments in
technology. This is because parallel manipulators have such capabilities as a higher
payload, high rigidity and accuracy, good stability, usability in high-speed applications, a
good dynamic performance, and precise positioning. The PKMs are frequently employed
in industrial applications such as medical operations, game simulators, oil platforms, heavy
freight transport, light metal machining, polishing, cutting, shaping and assembly
operations, and flight simulators.
Having reviewed the literature, Gao et al. (2002) presented a design and
innovations for new variants of 2 degree-of-freedom (DOF), 3 DOF, 4 DOF, and 5 DOF
parallel mechanisms. In their study, Liu et al. (2005) proposed the family of 3-degree-of-
freedom parallel manipulators with a new high-revolution capacity to overcome low-
revolution capabilities of existing parallel manipulators. Budde et al. (2007) presented
design problems (singularity) and the optimization of a linear delta robot (workspace,
rigidity, precision of varying rod lengths) and implemented their model application in
furtherance of this work (Budde et al. 2008).
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Ayyıldız and Ayyıldız (2017). “Kinematic milling,” BioResources 12(4), 9326-9337. 9327
Stan et al. (2008) presented a multi-objective optimum design procedure to triglide
and delta robot features, such as workspace boundaries, rigidity, and transmission quality
index (speed, force, and power characteristics), which are the optimal design criteria for 3-
DOF parallel robots. Corbel et al. (2008) presented the design and optimization of a parallel
machine tool by combining a real 3-DOF robot (linear delta) with 6-DOF measuring
parallel robots. Yuan et al. (2008) proposed optimal design methods for the linear delta
robot to obtain a specified cuboid workspace.
Kelaiaia et al. (2012) presented an illustrative application of the methodology
developed for a linear delta parallel robot with 3-DOF. This methodology involves the
geometric, kinematic, and dynamic models of the selected structure. It estimates
performance criteria (workspace, rigidity, kinematic, and dynamic performance),
determines the boundaries of the robot structure, creates mathematical formulae of the
optimization problem, and uses a genetic algorithm utility for the solution of the problem.
Patel and George (2012) compared various criteria, such as structures and workspaces, for
serial and parallel manipulators. Niu et al. (2013) presented the dynamics and control of a
novel 3-DOF parallel manipulator with actuation redundancy. Zeng et al. (2014)
introduced the structure and constraint design of a 3-DOF translational parallel
manipulator. Lin et al. (2015) investigated the design and implementation of the delta
parallel robot, covering the entire mechatronic process, involving kinematics, control
design, and optimizing methods. Xie et al. (2016) proposed a 6-DOF hybrid mechanism
for the development of a turbine blade grinding machine. The conceptual design was
presented, and the singularity of the 3-DOF parallel module was analyzed. Xu et al. (2017)
presented a novel hybrid machine with 6-DOF serial-parallel topological structure used as
an ultra-precision polishing equipment.
Today, the majority of university laboratories, research institutes, and enterprises
do not have PKMs. This is because education and training costs for a novel technology like
PKM are high. There are rare studies in the literature on a low-cost 3-DOF parallel
kinematic machine aimed at contributing to practical experiences in the use of PKM
(Glavonjic et al. 2009). Yang and Hong (2001) developed a real-time intercept-based three-
dimensional (3D) linear and circular interpolation software to achieve simultaneous 3-axis
motion on the PC-NC milling machine. Gordon and Hillery (2005) developed a low-cost
bridge-type X/Y motion system. In this system, the CNC controller is controlled by an
interface that supports G-codes written in C ++. Kanaan et al. (2009) obtained inverse and
forward kinematic equations for a serial-parallel 5-axis machine, which they called a
VERNE machine tool. Here, symbolic methods to calculate all kinematic solutions are
proposed.
Guo et al. (2012) developed a universal numeric control (NC) program processor
for CNC systems aimed at processing various types of NC software because most CNC
manufacturers use their own custom functions in NC software. In this study, the purpose
is to transform the G-codes produced by any CAM software for controlling a linear delta
parallel machine, one of the PKM structures, into a new G-code structure interpretable by
the robot. For this purpose, an inverse kinematic model was developed for the linear delta
parallel machine, and G-codes were transformed into a meaningful code system for this
structure through a designed interface. The new codes produced were transferred to the
PKM structure in a sequence to control the system.
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Ayyıldız and Ayyıldız (2017). “Kinematic milling,” BioResources 12(4), 9326-9337. 9328
EXPERIMENTAL
Description and Kinematics of the Mechanism Figure 1 shows the geometric definitions for the linear delta parallel machine. As
can be seen in Fig. 2, the machine is in the form of a 3-degree-of-freedom parallel robot of
3-PSS (prismatic link, spherical link, spherical link) type (Gao et al. 2002). The robot
consists of arms integrated into the fixed platform and a mobile platform. The mobile
platform and the fixed platform are coupled to each other by 3 kinematic chains arranged
at an angle of αi. Each kinematic chain was jointed with 2 parallel rods of length L (with a
distal and proximal spherical link) and with a linear actuator (Gao et al. 2002).
The mobile platform always remained parallel to the fixed platform. The prismatic
motion of the mobile platform was provided by the combined motion of all 3 actuators. In
the literature, there are various studies on the kinematic modeling of a linear delta robot
(Company and Pierrot 2002; Righettini et al. 2002; Liu et al. 2004; Kelaiaia et al. 2012;
Xie et al. 2016).
Fig. 1. Geometric definition of the linear delta robot (Gao et al. 2002)
The geometric definitions of the linear delta robot are given below (Gao et al.
2002),
{R0}: (00--x0, y0, z0): “00” is the reference frame for the fixed platform, the center of the
equilateral triangle 010203, and also the center of the circle with radius Rb.
{Rp}: (P—xn, yn, zn): “P” is the reference frame for the mobile platform, the center of the
equilateral triangle B1B2B3, and also the center of the circle with radius Rn.
q1, q2, q3: Links the variables for stroke control of 3 linear actuators.
Rb: Is the radius of the circle centered at 00, and the distance between 0i and 00, and‖000𝑖‖ =𝑅𝑏 , 𝑖 = 1,2,3
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Ayyıldız and Ayyıldız (2017). “Kinematic milling,” BioResources 12(4), 9326-9337. 9329
Rn: Is the radius of the circle centered at P, the distance between “P”,Bi, and the center of
the mobile platform, and ‖𝑃𝐵𝑖‖ = 𝑅𝑛, 𝑖 = 1,2,3.
The kinematic model for the linear delta robot refers to the position and the
orientation of the end effector in relation to the reference frame (R0) and ‖𝐴𝑖𝐵𝑖‖ = 𝐿.
AiBi2- L2= 0, i = 1, 2, 3 (1)
Coordinates of Bi in the reference frame for the movable platform are given in Eq. 2,
[𝐵𝑖]𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑡 = [𝑥 + 𝑅𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼𝑖
𝑦 + 𝑅𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼𝑖
𝑧] (2)
and coordinates of Ai in the reference frame for the fixed platform are given in Eq. 3,
[𝐴𝑖]𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑡 = [𝑅𝑏𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼𝑖
𝑅𝑏𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼𝑖
𝑞𝑖
] (3)
𝛼𝑖 =2𝜋
3(𝑖 − 1), 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3 (4)
Using Eq. 1 to build the expression of the inverse kinematic model, Eq. 5 was obtained.
𝑞𝑖 = 𝑧 + √𝐿2 − (𝑥 − (𝑅𝑏 − 𝑅𝑛)𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼𝑖)2 − (𝑦 − (𝑅𝑏 − 𝑅𝑛)𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼𝑖)2 (5)
To build the forward kinematic model for the linear delta robot, Eq. 6 should be solved
with respect to X, Y, and Z (Stan et al. 2008),
{𝐹𝑧2 + 2𝐺𝑧 + 𝐻 = 0
𝑦 = 𝐴𝑧 + 𝐵𝑥 = 𝐶𝑧 + 𝐷
} (6)
where:
𝑧1,2 =−2𝐺±√2𝐺2−4𝐹𝐻
2𝐹 (7)
The solution adopted was 𝑧 = min (𝑧1, 𝑧2)
𝐴 =(𝑞2−𝑞3)
√3(𝑅𝑏−𝑅𝑛) (8)
𝐵 =𝑞3
2−𝑞22
2√3(𝑅𝑛−𝑅𝑏) (9)
𝐶 =2(𝑞2−𝑞1)−𝐴(𝑅𝑛−𝑅𝑏)√3
3(𝑅𝑏−𝑅𝑛) (10)
𝐷 =𝑞1
2−𝑞22−𝐵√3(𝑅𝑛−𝑅𝑏)
3(𝑅𝑏−𝑅𝑛) (11)
𝐸 = (𝑅𝑛 − 𝑅𝑏) + 𝐵 (12)
𝐹 = 𝐴2 + 𝐶2 + 1 (13)
𝐺 = 𝐴𝐸 + 𝐶𝐷 − 𝑞1 (14)
𝐻 = 𝐸2 + 𝐷2 + 𝑞12 − 𝐿2 (15)
Applying the above equations to Eq. 6, the forward kinematic model for the linear delta
robot was formulated.
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Ayyıldız and Ayyıldız (2017). “Kinematic milling,” BioResources 12(4), 9326-9337. 9330
Fig. 2. Link scheme for the linear delta robot
Control Structure of Linear Delta Parallel Machine Integrated operations of the system were ensured via a software system appropriate
for controlling the linear delta parallel machine. The interface designed with an inverse
kinematic modeling of linear delta and G-codes were transformed into a meaningful code
system for this structure. The codes produced were transferred to the PKM structure in a
sequence to control the system. Figure 3 shows the control structure of the linear delta
parallel machine.
Fig. 3. Control flowchart of the linear delta parallel machine
Based on Fig. 3, it is possible to plan the orbit of the linear delta parallel machine.
By designing the model of any physical object, the object’s build codes were produced
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Ayyıldız and Ayyıldız (2017). “Kinematic milling,” BioResources 12(4), 9326-9337. 9331
with the help of the CAM software. Here, build codes produced with the CAM software
were formed according to the Cartesian space. Adapting these codes in the Cartesian space
to the build environment, motors linked to the X, Y, and Z axes were linearly driven. The
codes produced for the Cartesian structure were not suitable for the motional structure of
the linear delta parallel machine structure within the workspace. Due to the linear motion
of the arms A1, A2, and A3 of the linear delta, and due to the prismatic motions occurring
at the joint of these arms, transformation into a coding system interpretable by the Cartesian
structure was necessary. Therefore, a new code system was created based on appropriate
CAM codes through an interface according to the prismatic motion of arms A1, A2, and A3
by linear delta, and by employing the kinematic equations for this structure. The new codes
produced were run on the Mach3 software (Valentino and Goldenberg 2006) for
controlling the linear delta parallel machine. Control of the linear delta parallel machine
was conducted by repeating this sequence.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Producing CAM Codes Using the Mastercam X5 software (Valentino, and Goldenberg 2006), the build
codes of an object designed in any CAD software were produced. In producing the build
codes with Mastercam X5, the machine type selected was “Default”. The reason for this is
that there is no machine type available for the linear delta parallel machine. Figure 4 shows
a sample code produced with Mastercam X5.
Fig. 4. Sample code produced with Mastercam X5
Code Transformation with the Interface Developed
Because the codes produced with Mastercam X5 in Fig. 4 were appropriate for
machine types of the Cartesian structure, these codes were transformed into the motion
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Ayyıldız and Ayyıldız (2017). “Kinematic milling,” BioResources 12(4), 9326-9337. 9332
space of the parallel delta parallel machine that had a parallel structure. The inverse
kinematic equations were employed. The interface was developed in Visual Studio 2015
(Fig. 5).
Fig. 5. The interface developed
Fig. 6. Flowchart of the interface system developed
The flowchart of the interface system developed is shown in Fig. 6. In this interface,
an algorithm was developed for codes G0, G1, G2, and G3. For codes G0 and G1, a new
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Ayyıldız and Ayyıldız (2017). “Kinematic milling,” BioResources 12(4), 9326-9337. 9333
code was produced by performing an inverse kinematic calculation with X, Y, Z values in
the corresponding row. Using the start and end points of the arc as a reference for the code
G2, the arc path was pixelated for a clockwise linear interpolation with X, Y, Z and I, J, K
values. These pixels were calculated based on the arc angle and hypotenuse found. The
same applied to code G3. When the interface recognized the codes G2 and G3, the
algorithm ran and the new code was transformed as a code G1. Figure 7 shows G2 and G3
circular interpolation parameters (Petrovic et al. 2017).
(a) (b)
Fig. 7. G2 and G3 circular interpolation parameters
The radius of the arcs shown in Fig. 7 is given in Eq. 16, while the arc angles are
given in Eqs. 17 and 18 (Petrovic et al. 2017),
, (16)
(17)
(18)
where x1, y1, and z1 are the arc start coordinates, x2, y2, and z2 are the arc end coordinates,
xc, yc, and zc are central coordinates of the circular interpolation, r is the radius of the
circular interpolation (o), α0 is the start angle of the circular interpolation (o), and α1 is the
circular interpolation angle (o).
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Ayyıldız and Ayyıldız (2017). “Kinematic milling,” BioResources 12(4), 9326-9337. 9334
Running New Codes with Mach3 The new codes produced were run using the Mach3 software. The Mach3 software
communicated with the AKZ250 USB control card to guide the motors. As practice, the
contouring of square, circle, and triangle geometries was performed. Figure 8 shows a
model application. Table 1 shows the G-codes produced for the Cartesian structure, and
the new G-codes transformed into a delta structure through the interface developed.
Fig. 8. Model contouring for a square, circle, and triangle
Table 1. The G-codes Produced for the Cartesian Structure
Cartesian G-codes G-codes for Delta Structure
% O0000(TUM) N102 G0 G17 G40 G49 G80 G90 N104 T225 M6 N106 G0 G90 G54 X-62.5 Y2.5. S5730 M3 N108 G43 H225 Z10. N110 G1 Z-1. F859.5 N112 X2.5 F250. N114 Y-62.5 N116 X-62.5 N118 Y2.5 N120 G0 Z10. N122 X-7.5 Y-30. N124 G1 Z-1. F859.5 N126 G3 X-30. Y-7.5 I-22.5 J0. F250. - - - - N154 M30 %
% O0000(TUM) N102 G0 G17 G40 G49 G80 G90 N104 T225 M6 N106 G0 G90 G54 X-30,29 Y21,67 Z19,48 S5730 M3 N108 G43 H225 X-30,29 Y21,67 Z19,48 N110 G1 X-41,29 Y10,67 Z8,48 F859.5 N112 X0,28 Y-0,54 Z-2,8 F250. N114 X-5,24 Y-37,14 Z20,33 N116 X-47,55 Y-24,69 Z30,94 N118 X-41,29 Y10,67 Z8,48 N120 G0 X-30,29 Y21,67 Z19,48 N122 X4,71 Y-3,15 Z23,84 N124 G1 X-6,29 Y-14,15 Z12,84 F859.5 N126 G1 X-6,21 Y-13,51 Z12,44 F250 N126 G1 X-6,16 Y-12,86 Z12,06 N126 G1 X-6,15 Y-12,21 Z11,68 N126 G1 X-6,18 Y-11,56 Z11,32 N126 G1 X-6,24 Y-10,9 Z10,97 N126 G1 X-6,34 Y-10,24 Z10,64 N126 G1 X-6,47 Y-9,58 Z10,32 N126 G1 X-6,64 Y-8,93 Z10,01 N126 G1 X-6,85 Y-8,28 Z9,73 - - - N154 M30 %
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Ayyıldız and Ayyıldız (2017). “Kinematic milling,” BioResources 12(4), 9326-9337. 9335
CONCLUSIONS
1. This paper introduced a novel design of a linear delta parallel machine for milling
wood material. The development of the machine involved the development of the
mechanism, as well as both its hardware and software.
2. An inverse kinematic model was developed for the linear delta parallel machine,
and G-codes were transformed into a meaningful code system for this structure
through the designed interface. The new codes produced were transferred to the
linear delta structure in a sequence to control the system.
3. Finally, by developing a model application of a programming system developed for
a 3 degree-of-freedom linear delta parallel machine, the workability for milling
wood material (medium-density fibreboard) was shown.
REFERENCES CITED
Aguilera, A., Meausoone, P. J., and Martin, P. (2000). “Wood material influence in
routing operations: The mdf case,” Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 58(4), 278-283. DOI:
10.1007/s001070050425
Budde, C., Last, P., and Hesselbach, J. (2007). “Development of a triglide-robot with
enlarged workspace,” in: Robotics and Automation 2007 IEEE International
Conference, Rome, Italy, pp. 543-548.
Budde, C., Rose, M., Maass, J., and Raat, A. (2008). “Automatic detection of assembly
mode for a Triglide-robot,” in: Robotics and Automation 2008 IEEE International
Conference, Pasadena, CA, USA, pp. 1568-1575.
Company, O., and Pierrot, F. (2002). “Modelling and preliminary design issues of a 3-
axis parallel machine-tool,” Mech. Mach. Theory 37(11), 1325-1345. DOI:
10.1016/S0094-114X(02)00040-X
Corbel, D., Company, O., and Pierrot, F. (2008). “Optimal design of a 6-dof parallel
measurement mechanism integrated in a 3-dof parallel machine-tool,” in: Intelligent
Robots and Systems 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference, Nice, France, pp.
1970-1976.
Davim, J. P., Clemente, V. C., and Silva, S. (2009). “Surface roughness aspects in milling
MDF (medium density fibreboard),” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 40(1), 49-55. DOI:
10.1007/s00170-007-1318-z
Gao, F., Li, W., Zhao, X., Jin, Z., and Zhao, H. (2002). “New kinematic structures for 2-,
3-, 4-, and 5-dof parallel manipulator designs,” Mech. Mach. Theory 37(11), 1395-
1411.DOI: 10.1016/S0094-114X(02)00044-7
Glavonjic, M., Milutinovic, D., and Zivanovic, S. (2009). “Functional simulator of 3-axis
parallel kinematic milling machine,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 42(7), 813-821. DOI:
10.1007/s00170-008-1643-x
Gordon, S., and Hillery, M. T. (2003). “A review of the cutting of composite materials,”
P. I. Mech. Eng. L-J. Mat. 217(1), 35-45. DOI: 10.1177/146442070321700105
Gordon, S., and Hillery, M. T. (2005). “Development of a high-speed CNC cutting
machine using linear motors,” J. Mater. Process. Tech. 166(3), 321-329. DOI:
10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2003.08.009
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Ayyıldız and Ayyıldız (2017). “Kinematic milling,” BioResources 12(4), 9326-9337. 9336
Guo, X., Liu, Y., Du, D., Yamazaki, K., and Fujishima, M. (2012). “A universal NC
program processor design and prototype implementation for CNC systems,” Int. J.
Adv. Manuf. Tech. 60(5), 561-575. DOI: 10.1007/s00170-011-3618-6
Kanaan, D., Wenger, P., and Chablat, D. (2009). “Kinematic analysis of a serial–parallel
machine tool: The verne machine,” Mech. Mach. Theory 44(2), 487-498. DOI:
10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2008.03.002
Kelaiaia, R., Company, O., and Zaatri, A. (2012). “Multiobjective optimization of a
linear delta parallel robot,” Mech. Mach. Theory 50, 159-178. DOI:
10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2011.11.004
Lin, J., Luo, C. H., and Lin, K. H. (2015). “Design and implementation of a new delta
parallel robot in robotics competitions,” Int. J. Adv. Robot Syst. 12(10), 153-162.
DOI: org/10.5772/61744
Lin, R. J., Van Houts, J., and Bhattacharyya, D. (2006). “Machinability investigation of
medium-density fibreboard,” Holzforschung 60(1), 71-77. DOI:
10.1515/HF.2006.013
Liu, X. J., Wang, J., and Pritschow, G. (2005). “A new family of spatial 3-dof fully-
parallel manipulators with high rotational capability,” Mech. Mach. Theory 40(4),
475-494. DOI: 10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2004.10.001
Liu, X. J., Wang, J., Oh, K. K., and Kim, J. (2004). “A new approach to the design of a
delta robot with a desired workspace,” J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 39(2), 209-225. DOI:
10.1023/B:JINT.0000015403.67717.68
Niu, X. M., Gao, G. Q., Liu, X. J., and Bao, Z. D. (2013). “Dynamics and control of a
novel 3-DOF parallel manipulator with actuation redundancy,” Int. J. Autom.
Comput. 10(6), 552-562. DOI: org/10.1007/s11633-013-0753-6
Patel, Y. D., and George, P. M. (2012). “Parallel manipulators applications—a survey,”
Modern Mechanical Engineering 2(3), 57-64. DOI: 10.4236/mme.2012.23008
Petrovic, A., Lukic, L., Ivanovic, S., and Pavlovic, A. (2017). “Optimisation of tool path
for wood machining on CNC machines,” P. I. Mech. Eng. C-J. Mec. 231(1), 72-87.
DOI: 10.1177/0954406216648715
Righettini, P., Tasora, A., and Giberti, H. (2002). “Mechatronic design of a 3-dof parallel
translational manipulator,” in: 11th International on Robotics in Alpe-Adria-Danube
Region, Balatonfured, Hungary, pp. 367-372.
Stan, S. D., Manic, M., Maties, V., and Balan, R. (2008). “Evolutionary approach to
optimal design of 3 DOF translation exoskeleton and medical parallel robot,” in:
Human System Interactions 2008 Conference, Krakow, Poland, pp. 720-725.
Valentino, J., and Goldenberg, J. (2006). “Learning mastercam x5 mill 2d step-by-step,”
Industrial Press Inc., New York, USA.
Vančo, M., Jamberová, Z., Barcík, Š., Gaff, M., Čekovská, H., and Kaplan, L. (2017).
“The effect of selected technical, technological, and material factors on the size of
juvenile poplar wood chips generated during face milling,” BioResources 12(3),
4881-4896. DOI: 10.15376.biores./12.3.4881-4896
Xie, F., Liu, X. J., and Wang, J. (2016). “Conceptual design and optimization of a 3-DoF
parallel mechanism for a turbine blade grinding machine,” P. I. Mech. Eng. C-J. Mec.
230(3), 406-413. DOI: 10.1177/0954406215589122
Xu, P., Li, B., Cheung, C. F., and Zhang, J. F. (2017). “Stiffness modeling and
optimization of a 3-DOF parallel robot in a serial-parallel polishing machine,” Int. J.
Precis. Eng. Man. 18(4), 497-507. DOI: org/10.1007/s12541-017-0060-1
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Ayyıldız and Ayyıldız (2017). “Kinematic milling,” BioResources 12(4), 9326-9337. 9337
Yang, M. Y., and Hong, W. P. (2001). “A PC–NC milling machine with new
simultaneous 3-axis control algorithm,” Int. J. Mach. Tool. Manu. 41(4), 555-566.
DOI: 10.1016/S0890-6955(00)00091-2
Yuan, Q., Ji, S., Wang, Z., Wang, G., Wan, Y., and Zhan, L. (2008). “Optimal design of
the linear delta robot for prescribed cuboid dexterous workspace based on
performance chart,” in: WSEAS International Conference Proceedings Mathematics
and Computers in Science and Engineering (No. 8) World Scientific and Engineering
Academy and Society, Hangzhou, China, pp. 35-41.
Zeng, Q., Ehmann, K. F., and Cao, J. (2014). “Tri-pyramid robot: design and kinematic
analysis of a 3-DOF translational parallel manipulator,” Robot Comput. Integr.
Manuf. 30(6), 648-657. DOI: org/10.1016/j.rcim.2014.06.002
Article submitted: June 23, 2017; Peer review completed: October 14, 2017; Revised
version received and accepted: October 18, 2017: Published: October 25, 2017.
DOI: 10.15376/biores.12.4.9326-9337